People v. Baez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Baez

47 A.D.3d 516, 849 N.Y.S.2d 154

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 24, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 47 A.D.3d 516 (People v. Baez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Baez, 47 A.D.3d 516, 849 N.Y.S.2d 154 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene R. Silverman, J.), rendered on or about April 20, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s argument that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. We further find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility, including its evaluation of the victim’s opportunity to observe defendant. Concur—Tom, J.E, Saxe, Friedman and Buckley, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene R. Silverman, J.), rendered on or about April 20, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s argument that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. We further find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility, including its evaluation of the victim’s opportunity to observe defendant. Concur—Tom, J.E, Saxe, Friedman and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.3d 516, 849 N.Y.S.2d 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-baez-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack